The bio note appended to Max Rheese's article should acknowledge that the 'Australian Environment Foundation' is a front for the Institute of Public Affairs, which in turn is a front for big business. A front group for a front group - more front than Myers!

Rheese says that in the 2004 election the major environmental groups outspent the political parties by a factor of three. But of course the political parties outspent environment groups by orders of magnitude. Many of Rheese's other statements are equally ridiculous.

I like the comment on the poor farmers watching their paddocks consumed by monoculture regrowth and his assertion that clearing it to plant a monoculture of pasture or crops is somehow better. And his laughable assertion that the river red gum forests NEED cattle grazing them to remain healthy. How the forests developed this symbiotic relationship with farmers and their livestock in 200 years is not mentioned. No Dams policies have broad support in the community as witnessed in Tasmania, The Hunter, Sthn Queensland and Victoria.

A shill for the pollution industry and as dishonest as they come.
Its all about MONEY. For these scum NOTHING is more important.

Jim Green's comments are absurd, the AEF and IPA are perpetually cashstarved. Max Rheese's piece should be reprinted in the MSM if at all possible, perhaps Jim could mobilise some of that mythical support for AEF by Exxon et al.

More seriously, Peter Spencer should be encouraged to come down from his tower, eat a good steak, and organise the bush clearing he needs to have done, and I can suggest a few good scientists who pro bono will serve as defence witnesses to prove a net increase in CO2 absorption from his clearing. Jim Green's track record of deceit makes him an ideal prosecution witness.

This article exposes the environmentalist industry for what it is: a cynical exercise by minorities to provide themselves with good well paid jobs and perks, along with unlimited jet-setting, which they tell the rest of us we should cut down, or cut out for the good of the planet.

These confidence tricksters have to desperately maintain their lies to keep the goodies they have grown used to.

Like all NGO’s, the environmental industry has much to answer for.

Today, even Kevin Rudd doubts that anything will come of the Copenhagen Conference – a costly and useless gab-fest foisted on the world by the environmental scamming lobby, the corrupt IPCC and scientists grabbing for grants

Who is distorting the truth?
And who is driven by ideology--and yet pretends not to be.

The Oz "environment" foundation has direct links and/or shares the same IDEOLOGICALLY driven agendas as the "Heart"-land Institute, an outfit which specializes in lies and misinformation.

There is a letter in the Oz this morning pointing out that there have been copious errors found in Ian Plimers now influential book which he refuses to publicly acknowledge. And that he also still refuses to answer or respond to some very challenging questions by George Monbiot.

Meanwhile I highly recommend a remarkable book by Curtis White titled "the Barbaric Heart: Faith, Money, and the Crisis of Nature".

A book which describes the toxic world-view promoted by the Oz "environment" Foundation, the IPA and the "Heart"(dead) Institute.

Max. Congratulations on an excellent article. The best that I have read in OLO.

I agree with your opening remarks regarding the benefits that we all have gained from the efforts of conservationists over the past 40 years or so. To add to your list, we now have clean water in our harbours and beaches - Sydney Harbour is a particularly good example. And the benefits have been achieved in many places. London for example now has clean air, as does most of Europe.

We have also gained from the overall increase in environmental responsibility. A simple example relates to trash in the streets. Australian towns and cities are remarkably clean most of the time, in stark contrast to towns and cities in some other parts of the world.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have rational discussion and fact based debate on the issues you raise. However, it seems that that isn't possible in this modern era. The whole discussion has been politicised. To ask rational questions is to be labelled a 'denier' engaging in 'conspiracy theories'.

We need our leaders in politics, the media, business and universities to demand much higher standards of discourse. The MSM, particularly Fairfax and 'Our ABC' have much to be responsible for in dumbing down the debate. Unfortunately.

Leigh, ".., the corrupt IPCC ..."
WTF, I've been away from olo a while but still no change with the gullible cretins on this forum! and a merry christmas, mark john conley

An interesting article. Are the enviromentalists Caesar or Pompey? Whatever. While I have a few issues with a small barking mad minority in the environmental movement, I don't believe, as this writer asserts, that the plurality of environmental movements exist to sporn more environmental causes.

These movements exist because there are real problems threatening future generations.

I do take his point that there is some very fast and loose thinking amongst some elements of the movement who are hell bent on destroying economies rather than offering realistic alternatives. These are the eco-fascists, who I enjoy 'debating'.

Herbert Stencil I lived in London in the 1950's. The clean air act stopped the burning of coal and change to smokeless fuels and eventually to gas. This stopped the "Smogs" which killed hundreds of people and was appalling. The rivers were not "Cleaned up" the people who were polluting them were stopped and the rivers were soon clean again. Of course even when polluted they had Salmon and Lampreys traveling in them.
None of this needed the Left Wing Loony party at all. The ACA (Anglers Co-operative Association) did a lot of this work. None of the current crop of "Conservationists" have any agenda other than making a lot of money and getting the power to say NO! Now they want a slice of a tax which everyone knows will be taken over by "traders" anyway.
We need a real expose of this disgusting movement and the crooks who are running it.

This piece to complete garbage.
Ian Pilmer used to spend time debating creationist. Its clear they didn't learn a thing from him but he learnt allot from them. he's been teaching his new friends at the AEF....Hope the money, the short lived spot light is worth your self-respect Ian. you know there money to be made in the anti AIDS and the new creationist movement Intelligent Design, it's an old Earth movement mainly, so you wouldn't have to be to sink to low, just up to your chin.

This article's a joke.

It seems to me that "divide and conquer, and a willingness to distort the truth" are the hallmarks of the AEF. After all, that's why this faux environmental organisation was set up, isn't it?

Good start Max. I would like to have seen less about the status quo of environmentalism and more analysis of its causes and foundations.

Your article gets very close but keeps stopping short. One of the foundations of activism can be seen as fundamentalism which is based upon ideology. There are many examples of fundamentalism in today’s world that clearly demonstrate that when challenged by “non-believers”, fundamentalism has nowhere to go except to crank up the ideological rhetoric, more fundamentalism.

Facts just bounce off simply because the rhetoric is based upon “belief” rather than reality, hence pseudo-reality is created. Many of the great causes are driven by proselytizing rather than by debate, which is why we often see the quasi religious fervor that seeks to gain “converts” rather than rational support for reality.

Just review some of the responses to this post to see just how much reality bounces off ideology.

More please

I agree spindoc, you are sounding a lot more shrill lately.

I agree with Jim Green's comment posted first, that organizations should be exposed as to their funding, I don't know that they'd take Jim's advice and also state what he thinks they should be called, a front for a front .. indeed.

Let's go further then, and if Greenpeace, Youth Climate Club or any other organization, or writer wants to post, to go through their careers with a fine tooth comb.

Find any little scandals, any funding from government or obscure other organizations - we might find a lot of eco organizations are fronts for fronts, since they all seem to prop each other up. There are even eco groups that manage the other eco groups into "coalitions", are these fronts for fronts for fronts?

I'm making light of Jim here and others like him who when they don't like the content or message of an article try to undermine the author by scurrilous rumor mongery, such is the eco response.

Since the eco types always hold themselves to be so morally superior, you have to wonder why they find it necessary to resort to such tactics.

Inferiority? Emasculation? Or do they react this way like any other political organization or cult when its power-base is threatened?

Well said RPG, as today's Australian shows, the leading 4 Green "NGOs" got through $71 million last year, much of it taken up by their staff. Exxon's contribution to Heartland is around $100,000 p.a. and a great big zero to IPA and AEF. However we know Jim Green (sic) will never admit to his deception.

Tom Tiddler, according to Sourcewatch, 'Greenpeace relies wholly upon the voluntary donations of individual supporters and on grant support from foundations'(although the 'foundations' are hard to identify, which is not good, they contribute only a small proportion of the total), so I guess its up to Greenpeace how it spend its funds in pursuit of its goals. You may be on to something important re spending money on staff, though - this problem is distressingly widespread throughout the world. Organisations and governments should stop wasting money on employing people and just get on with the job - oh hang on a minute....

If nothing else , this article is flushing out the Latte drinking ,City dwelling Greenies who are all for change... as long as they can still drive the 4 wheel drive gas Guzzlers ,use disposable Nappies , Leaf Blowers and Fly overseas on their Holidays...etc.

Enviromentally friendly ones of course....Hipocrites All

Don't cha love arguments by extremes, some thing for everyone but the truth.

First not all greenies (what ever that is) are either cynical hypocrites nor are the tree hugging unwashed alternative life-stylers. Most are merely average folk some rich some not so.

Most share a limited interest in the environment but...does that excuse the curmudgeons who not only do nothing but actively want to increase the obvious problems.

Bogus environmental organization like the one headed by the author is a *smokescreen* for an industry who wants to, by default increase the pollution and hold back alternatives. I only wish this character actually knew or accounted for the advancement in the alternative energy and associated fields scientifically.

Likewise I dispute his deliberate obfuscatious tactics of selective targeting. Its fine for him and his supporter corporations to allow themselves obscene wage packages on the grounds of 'they need to make a living' and 'they have great responsibilities' yet if the same logic is applied to a green group it is some how suddenly evil. Bollocks.

Read me correctly I am *not* saying that alternative energy sources will or totally replace current technology, only that they shouldn't be ignored, dismissed, neglected etc.

The real problem is that the average person is so inundated with causes, advertising, spin, political bull etc that causes, any cause needs to be heard over the background rabble. To do that the cause needs do be evermore attention grabbing (shrill if you like).
As if the likes of this joker and his corporate puppet masters are helping by being rational and calm and measured.

The dogma argument is as transparently disingenuous as it is puerile, which major political party doesn't give preference to business including the polluters, the author champions for?

All of them are to blame for the truth being drowned out. Max can hardly claim the high moral ground.
Max, No sale and I don't want any bridges either.

DAMN GREENIES!

For a decade, I was one. I worked for "Social Change Media" and almost was a professional campaigner for the Wilderness Society... but they ran out of money!

It is not an idealism, it is a zealotry! Being a greenie is a psudo-religion! Never let the truth get in the way of a 'higher calling'. The end justifies the means... Saving the planet from the sins of hte un-believiers is more important than the truth...

The "belief" is more important than the truth! Look at the Victorian bushfires... Forget the humand and the property.. think about all the fluffy animals. Killed by the Greenies!

If they had been allowed to conduct regular and extensive hazard reduction burns, then there would have been regular cool, winter fires, forming a moasic, a patchwork, of recently burnt, less-recently-burnt and distantly burnt bush... and teh fluffy animals could have moved from one area to the next - for examp;e moving from the small cool winter hazard-reduction fire to a safe place... and return once the food re-appeared in the recently burn patch.

However the greenies with their zealotry about 'saving the fluffy animals' have prevented cool winter fires, and as a result created less-frequent but Extensive Hot Firestorms! The poor little fulffies cant excape this sort of holocaust.

Even if they did survive the flames, the bush that used to provide their food is now ash... and because the holocaust was hundreds of square kilometres, instead of hundreds of square METRES... the Greenies, with their emotional, irrational zealotry, are guilty of habitat destruction and slaughter of the small fluffy animals they are trying to save!

Hypocrites. At least organised religion like Christianity had a couple of thousand years to adapt to reality and generally did "good" rather than misguided evil

Yes, the Greenies, like the socialists and feminists are religious fanatics.

It's just that their religions don't have a God... and now that they have so much power, and particularly, so much funding, they have no sense of balance...

I think the author - executive director of a politically motivated lobby group - is wrong to point the finger at conservationists using the tools of politics and publicity to achieve environmental outcomes. It's not extremism of environmentalists and conservationists that's the real heart of these issues, it's the complete failure of mainstream politics and vested interests to deal with issues like sustainability, environmental destruction and climate change in any meaningful way. He may feel that his deceptively named Australian Environment Foundation is merely responding to extreme environmentalism but it's just one more advocacy group that misleads and deceives to preserve an unsustainable - and extremely damaging - business as usual, whilst failing to address the great issues of our times.

When I read an article where two opposing 'camps' are pitted against each other, I look for some kind of assessment as to what extent each one's position is flawed and/or what kind of tactics they use.

Here however, I didn't see any acknowledgement that there are industry or lobby groups that also engage in deceitful campaigning when it comes to the environment.

Thus, when Rheese puts forward his message that environmentalists are engaging such behaviour, I'd expect any reasonable commentator to place this in the context of an ongoing dispute where both sides are engaging in unethical practices.

What's more, I'd expect there to be some acknowledgement that there are a wide variety of environmental groups and each have differing ethical standards by which they abide.

In failing to even acknowledge this reality, Rheese's otherwise reasonable hypothesis that *some* environmental groups engage in such behaviour deserves to be binned as more propaganda, this time coming from the other side.

In targeting groups for presenting one-sided, biased commentary, without acknowledging multiple approaches and the similar tactics employed by their opponents (although generally several orders of magnitude greater and for financial gain) Rheese opens himself up to well founded accusations of hypocrisy.